Thursday, September 08, 2011

Ron Paul

If Ron Paul wins the GOP nod I would give up my registration in the Republican Party. While I respect the right of people to disagree on subject Paul and his looney tune band of followers are beyond what I can deal with.

Whenever you find a lefty 9-11 truther agreeing with a Republican it is either the kooky Paul or Pat Buchanan.

You should see "Bruno". Sacha Baron Cohen managed to trick Ron Paul into making a complete fool of himself. If Ron Paul's popularity will raise above 5%, I am sure those clips from "Bruno" (showing Ron Paul defending his virtue from Cohen's amorous advances) will be circulated on the internet and make Ron Paul an even bigger laughing stock than he is now.

I see Joe Communist has weighed in, locked in his simplistic binary leftist thinking as ever. He doesn't care if you're against Obama either, as long you don't threaten his Social Security / Medicare welfare meal ticket.

Bad mouth Ron Paul enough and his army of sock puppet trolls will come.

So you agree w/beamish that we need to unplug her respirator and throw grandma out on the street because she's out-lived her Social Security benefit? Should they do that before or after they goosestep Rand Paul out of the Republican Party and give him the Ernst Rohm treatment? Wow. Stormfront would appear to have more going for it that the beamish/beakerkin America.

Beamish embodies what makes America great. His is the spirit of independence and can do attitude that built this country.

Mr. Beamish and I disagree on many things as I am a social liberal.

Like Mr. Beamish I share this can do attitude. We may differ on a policy or two but we share a respect for the founding fathers and love of country.

The GOP is embodied by Mr B and to a lesser extent the Beakerkins. The notion of the party running around with 9-11 Truthers, racistsand anti semites is abhorrent to me. I want you to look at the statements of Paul on Israel and compare them to that of Ducky.

If you want to find out about Ron Paul don't take my word for it listen to Reaganite Mark Levin. You will also find that Paul has a long history with the Stormfront types.

As bad as Obama is I would sooner endure that than Ron Paul and his freak like following of truthers and Stormfront crew.

The Paulites need to go from the GOP and the Tea Party. In fairness Rand Paul does not show the idiocy that his father is known for.

So Joe

Are Mark Levin, Ben Stein, Limbaugh, David Horrowitz all wrong about the loon Paul?

I'll stand with Mark Levin who knows a thing or two about conservatism.

If you care to look the information about Ron Paul's views on Blacks is out there.

Herman Cain - has made and reiterated statements declaring that the most basic God-given freedoms such as the freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly can be curtailed or negated by "community" fiat. NOT A CONSERVATIVE.

Rick Perry - was the Texas state-level campaign manager for Al Gore for President 1988, endorsed Hillary Clinton's attempt at a government takeover of health care in 1993, endorsed the disasterous TARP bailouts in 2009. NOT A CONSERVATIVE.

We may differ on a policy or two but we share a respect for the founding fathers and love of country.

...and Paul doesn't? Killing grandma is okay, she's a burden. Goose-stepping people who disagree on the modern role of America's military in the world, something that would have the founders ROLLING over in their grave, is the way the Founders would have done it...

Look, beakerkin, if you want to goose step Rand Paul out of the RNC BEFORE the primary voters have a voice, THAT's your business. Just don't expect me to back you up on it. I TRUST that the Republican primary voters can figure out who to vote for w/o any form of un-democratic "interventionism".

I say since the Tea Party "movement" is merely after all just disgruntled KKK-wing Democrats upset that the Weather Underground-wing Democrats got a black man their party nomination and the only real problem they have with Obama's socialism is that he's got darker skin than most of them, let those slimy communists and national socialist welfare statists HAVE Ron Paul.

Go ahead, "Tea Party." Run your own candidate. It'll be no different than all that hard work you put into electing Chris Coons to the Senate from Delaware. You'll get Obama and all the social welfare programs you're addicted to. Maybe Obama will bump up your monthly stipend a few pennies so you'll get over the fact that he's black.

Me, I'll stick to encouraging the Tea Party 'movement" to go back to the Democratic Party it came from.

I don't give a flyin 'F what Limbaugh OR Levin think about Paul. You want to belong to a party of RINO's, that's your cross to bear, not mine.

You're half the reason that the Republican Party big tent is still a pup tent. A real Republican lets the primary's do their job, and THEN they fall in line and support the winner. They don't goose step everyone inside the tent that they don't endorse out, and then ask them all to come back inside for the general election. That's just stoopid. But if you want the tea party OUT of your tent, fine. The RNC is toast w/o the Tea.

If you can't compete on the plain of ideas's, I suppose strong arming others out of your tent is all that your left with. Good luck with THAT against the commies. They're a lot more experienced at strong arming.

I don't know where you all get your information about the Tea Party, but it sounds to me like its coming from Democrats. Ron Paul is on the fringes of the Tea Party, he's damn sure not a "founder" of it. At most, he's a free-rider piggy-backing on their growth. They do not support him for President, other than maybe a small minority of them.

There is no such thing as a "Tea Party" as a monolithic movement. It's a movement comprised of different groups of Tea Parties, with the same factional infighting as you would see among any other large group.

The Tea Party as a whole is against increased government spending and they want to reduce it substantially. They also want to reduce the size of government, as well as cut taxes and regulations substantially.

They want to reform Social Security and other entitlements. Some of them want to privatize Social Security. Probably most of them do, but that's going to take some time and educating the public as to its benefits.

They are also strongly pro-Israel and pro-military. They are for a strong national defense.

How does any of that translate into welfare state socialism or anti-Semitism?

Michelle Bachmann was a Jimmy Carter supporter in 1976, thirty-five years ago when she was barely out of high school and during the heyday of the Watergate scandal, when Republican was a dirty word and the whole party was identified with Nixon.

Her actions then was a product of the times and Carter was seen as a moderate man of integrity who would heal the nation. Bear in mind, in 1976 there were few if any conservatives in the Republican Party who had any real influence. If there were, kindly point them out. Reagan doesn't count, he had no position at that time. In fact, the party establishment to a great extent opposed him in 1976 and 1980.

Leaving behind the distant past and back to the present, bear in mind also that it was the Tea Party people in the House of Representatives who endorsed Cap, Cut and Balance, and the Ryan Plan, and steadfastly refused to sign on to Obama's latest urges to raise taxes and to raise the debt ceiling. Had it not been for them, it would have been raised overnight and there would probably have been a substantial tax raise to boot.

The Tea Party's objections to Obama have absolutely zero to do with him being black, aside from a small minority of fringe kooks.

Every setback that Obama has suffered has been directly because of the Tea Party, which is by the way about ten percent Democrat.

Please Pagan, don't try talking logic to Team B. They know what's "best" for Republicans and Conservatives, and frog-walking the Tea Party out from under the RNC's "big tent" is precisely what is called for.

There is no such thing as a "Tea Party" as a monolithic movement. It's a movement comprised of different groups of Tea Parties, with the same factional infighting as you would see among any other large group.

The KKK-wing of the Democratic Party that ran off and created the Tea Party "movement" would be well-versed in the "leaderless resistance" model, where they conveniently faction off whenever you try to pin them down on something. You can find out Ron Paul or Donald Trump or Michelle Bachmann is popular with "the Tea Party" but then you have Tea Partiers claiming they don't have one voice behind any of them. You have a self-designated "Tea Party Federation" kicking other Tea Party groups out for badmouthing Islam at the same time you have Tea Party groups claiming this Tea Party Federation that overwhelmingly opposes ANY changes to Social Security or Medicare doesn't represent them and blah blah blah. It's funny the contortions this left-wing snake will flip through to try to party with conservatives and Republicans. Fuck those shitbags. EVERY politician floated by the Tea Party as a potential Presidential candidate is a god-damned leftist.

The Tea Party started out claiming they were going to take down the Republican Party. Make good on the threat, lefties.

No, JC, I think they have it in their heads that Ron Paul is "the father of the Tea Party" which is of course what he wants people to believe. The truth is, Paul is not the father, grandfather, or godfather of the Tea Party movement. If anything, he's the motherfucking "Crazy Uncle" of the Tea Party movement who somebody made the mistake of letting escape from the attic. They need to put him back in there, but then again like I said, in reality he's nothing but a free-rider and a leech, based mainly on Rand's popularity in the movement.

But I agree with you in the sense that without the Tea Party, there is no true conservative alternative in the Republican Party or anywhere else. All you'll have is a party that, sure, they'll fight for a few tax cuts and big spending military contracts, mainly for their big money contributors, but otherwise won't do jack shit about reducing the size and scope of government or reducing regulations.

How many Congressmen in the House of Representatives do you think the Republicans would have elected in 2010 without Tea Party support? Are all of those Tea Party Congressmen socialists, Democrats, or anti-semites? I don't think so. And make no mistake, all legitimate Tea Party groups are solidly united on the core principles of limited government, low taxes, reduced regulations, and adhering to the founding principles of the constitution.

The only place they part company is on some social issues, and maybe in some cases on military spending. And even there, at least in the case of social issues, the disagreement for the most part is on emphasis.

Without them, the Republicans probably would have taken over the House, but it wouldn't have been by nearly as much as they did. Bottom line, the GOP base is tired of Republican moderates. What got them started was the TARP, and then the stimulus. This has nothing to do with socialism or Democrats playing games, though admittedly there might be a small number of PUMAs in the movement. But frankly, their numbers and influences isn't any greater than the Paulbots, if as much. And neither one has any real influence. This is a base Republican movement at its core.

The proof that you can't win an election without them is a substantial number of these people are the ones who did not vote for John McCain. Most of the rest only voted for him because of Palin, or held their noses.

McCain lost because of the timing of the bank failures. In a solid economy Obama had no chance. McCain lost because he wasn't assertive enough in the face of a crisis. He didn't press Obama on specifics and let him drone on about hope and change.

If he had picked another moderate like himself I bet you he would have lost by an even bigger margin than he did. Remember when he was talking about picking that woman from California, Meg Whitman? For God's sake he even talked about picking Liebermann at one time. He would have been clobbered if he picked either one of them, or anybody like them.

And yeah, the problem was the messenger all right, you sure are spot on there.

Bottom line, if the Republicans nominate somebody else from the anthropogenic Global Climate Change of the Republican Party, like McCain, they don't need to cry when they get their asses handed to them again.

How many Congressmen in the House of Representatives do you think the Republicans would have elected in 2010 without Tea Party support?

Around 90 to 100 more than they actually did. If not for all the effort the Tea Party put into bringing victories for Democrats like Chris Coons, the Republican Party would have had the Senate as well. And we sure as fuck wouldn't be talking about "repealing" Obamacare, as it never would have passed in the first place.

Are all of those Tea Party Congressmen socialists, Democrats, or anti-semites? I don't think so.

No, they are Republicans that would have won anyway, even if the KKK-wing of the Democratic Party had not flipped over Obama cutting $500 Billion out of their Medicare.

And make no mistake, all legitimate Tea Party groups are solidly united on the core principles of limited government, low taxes, reduced regulations, and adhering to the founding principles of the constitution.

There's the rub though. How do you distinguish a "legitimate" Tea Party group from an "illegitimate" Tea Party group? I don't know, you don't know, and most tellingly, no one in the Tea Party "movement" knows. Once you get past all the rhetoric about "getting the nigger out of the White House" and "Hamas doesn't kill enough Jews" you find national socialists like Joe Communist who are convinced their grandmother would starve to death in the gutter if you removed the Social Security and Medicare assistance she didn't actually pay for. Being a lifelong left-wing Democrat parasite like everyone else in the Tea Party "movement," it never occurs to Joe Communist that he can take care of his own damned grandmother without public assistance. To him, that's unthinkable.

My larger point is that the only Tea Party organization that has assumed for itself the "right" to speak for the incoherent massed "Tea Party" as a whole (the "Tea Party Federation") to the point it sends out press releases stating it has excommunicated a Tea Party group for not disassociating from Mark Williams for calling Allah a "monkey god," are the same Tea Party "leaders" that have been polled numerous times to find that over 70% of them oppose ANY changes to Social Security or Medicare (including opposition to the Ryan Plan), the majority of them want increased taxation on "the rich," the majority of them want massive cuts to military and defense spending, and of course, they're the same bunch that have forwarded Comrades Paul, Trump, Cain, Bachmann, and Perry to lead their "conservative" movement.

It's a sick joke that has lost all possible ways to be funny. Having nothing to do with conservatives, and avoiding conservative principles at all costs, the incoherent Tea Party "movement" has become what it has always been - astroturf for the KKK wing of the Democratic Party.

Now there's over 20 vulnerable Democrats in the Senate and an unpopular President in the White House in the 2012 election, and we'll watch them all get re-elected as the Tea Party "movement" fucks up another cakewalk.

Meanwhile, conservatives have to answer for far left Keynesian socialists like Michelle Bachmann, and I'm sick of it.

If he had picked another moderate like himself I bet you he would have lost by an even bigger margin than he did. Remember when he was talking about picking that woman from California, Meg Whitman? For God's sake he even talked about picking Liebermann at one time. He would have been clobbered if he picked either one of them, or anybody like them.

McCain would have been clobbered if he picked Jesus Christ as his running mate. Don't forget that before it was even certain that McCain would be the GOP candidate and that Obama's Weather Underground wing of the Democratic Party would trump Hillary Clinton's KKK wing superdelegates for the nomination, there was a massive effort to smear John McCain. Even Rush Limbaugh was shilling for Hillary Clinton. A candidate with an A- / B+ conservative career voting record (McCain) vs. either Obama or Clinton (both with F- conservative records) and the proto-Tea Party "conservatives" had to "hold their nose" to vote for McCain if they bothered voting at all? Bullshit. They were too busy voting in the primaries for Hillary Clinton, in hopes that a black man wouldn't get their party nomination, and too busy trying to paint McCain as being pro-abortion and a Vietnamese intelligence asset / "Manchurian candidate."

Don't try to sell me the idea that the Tea Party "movement" is either conservative or even trying to pull the Republican Party to the right. Yeah, the "RINO" John McCain dropped Sarah Palin in our laps because he lacked any conservative substance, right?

I'm just holding the incoherent, far left national socialist Tea Party's feet to the fire. I'll possibly change my mind when or if they get around to forwarding a candidate anywhere near as conservative as McCain.

But for now, we'll just have Joe Communist and all the other Tea Party national socialists in a panic that the Mexicans are going to bankrupt their Social Security / Medicare welfare state gravy train.

There's so much there I don't even know where to begin, so let's just start with Christine O'Donnell. As flawed as she might have been (and I don't think she was), she had a right to run for the Senate and to seek support. The Republicans of Delaware overwhelmingly chose her for their candidate. Like it or not, she didn't just squeak by Mike Castle in the primary, she trounced his ass.

What did Castle do? He refused to support her. Hell, I don't think he ever publicly acknowledged her as the victor, though I might be wrong there, but I know he didn't support her, nor did most other officials of the Delaware Republican Party.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Karl Rove denounced her candidacy, not privately but publicly.

So you tell me who's responsible for Chris Coons winning the race, the Tea Party who supported her, campaigned for her, raised money for her, sent out mailers for her, knocked on doors for her. Or would it be the the establishmentarians of the GOP, at the state and national level, who went out of their way to denigrate her and her campaign and refused to offer her any more than, in some cases, the most tepid support at best?

I know, loaded question.

By the way, Beamish, a candidate who supports Cap and Trade, Amnesty for Illegals in the form of "Comprehensive Reform" and who promoted such things as McCain-Feingold doesn't deserve a B+. He doesn't deserve a C+.

So you tell me who's responsible for Chris Coons winning the race, the Tea Party who supported her, campaigned for her, raised money for her, sent out mailers for her, knocked on doors for her. Or would it be the the establishmentarians of the GOP, at the state and national level, who went out of their way to denigrate her and her campaign and refused to offer her any more than, in some cases, the most tepid support at best?

I'm guessing with all the support Hezbollah threw behind Coons that Delaware's Ron Paul crowd is happy with who won.

Regardless, it's rather easy to see how the Delaware Republican primaries for Senate unfolded. After digging up a left-wing Republican like Scott Brown in Massachusetts (the only kind of Republican in that super-sized gay bathhouse of a state) The Tea Party started working on its twin goals of eliminating conservatives from the Senate and making Obamacare permanent. Coons had written an essay about his becoming a "bearded Marxist" which of course made him as popular with the hardcore left-wing Tea Party "movement" as sticky popsicle sticks are with fire ants.

Christine O'Donnell, on the other hand, had a reliable track record of losing Senate races, and given her vocation of sponging off of campaign funds for personal gain had that welfare parasite mentality so championed by the Tea Party "movement." Either candidate winning would have pleased the Tea Party socialists, but when you really want some one to win, you put them against someone who had no possible chance of winning. O'Donnell was the perfect loser.

By Tea Party socialist ideology, Coons had to be elected to the Senate from Delaware at all costs, and that wouldn't be possible as long as a conservative like Mike Castle was going to run against him. So, Mike Castle had to be destroyed and put out of the race. Christine O'Donnell proceeded to smear Castle as a homosexual, the favored tactic of national socialists.

123,025 voters wound up voting for Christine O'Donnell against the Tea Party's favorite socialist Chris Coons. Which is around 17,500 less votes than she got in the Republican primary. Coons having no primary challenger at all on the Democrat side was able to supply voters in the Republican primary for his fellow leftist O'Donnell, and voila... Coons selected his own opposition.

Now the Tea Party is faced with the problem of how to get the House back out of Republican hands, but very content that they kept the Senate out of Republican hands.

Hey Beamish after that fractured fairy tale its time for a Rocky and Bullwinkle segment. Who's this guy named Mike Castle from Delaware that's a conservative? Is he anything at all like the one who ran for the Senate?

About Me

I am a Rudy Republican . The
peril of being a moderate is
that at times you get hit from
both sides. Some say I am at the edge of the great GOP tent. Radical leftists call me a rightwing extreemist.Yet in the end all we can ever be
is ourselves.